RT831819 (Community Member) asked a question.
Is there a way to remedy this?
Ask the Community
Get answers, share a use case, discuss your favorite features, or get input from the community.
By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts.
.png){kind=logo}
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
Hi RT831819!
Thanks for reaching out,
Veracode will pick up CWE-117 whenever a string that can be influenced by input to the system is written to the logs. It's usually Carriage Returns & Line Feeds (CLRF) that we are worried about as it can lead to log forgery and flooding.
We don't recognise any logging libraries out-of-the-box that mitigate against CLRF. To remove the flaw in Veracode we would recommend passing the string contents through a cleansing function for CWE-117 before writing to the logs. We support numerous .NET cleansers which can be found here https://help.veracode.com/reader/4EKhlLSMHm5jC8P8j3XccQ/IiF_rOE79ANbwnZwreSPGA
Many logging libraries can be configured through templates to also mitigate CLRF, however this is not something that Veracode will detect. If you have configured your logger to protect against CLRF you can raise a "Mitigate by Design" within the Veracode platform for your security team to review.
Hope this helps, Seb
We are using AntiXss to encode two strings that are part of the log and when sending just that information the scan passes. However, using .Net's Entripise logging library we are also sending a datetime stamp that is not based on user input and needs to be in the formation of a dictionary object <string,object> ("Timestamp", datetime) . Even when using the AntiXss on the string portion of the above, when actually writing to the log and using an object to represent the dictionary the scan shows a flaw again. Again, if we remove sending this piece of data everything works but we need to send datetime info for our log as the DB depends on it